I assume you're referring to the definition of OOP coming from the Alan Kay quote: “OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of

I assume you're referring to the definition of OOP coming from the Alan Kay quote: “OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things." This definition includes nearly every language with modules, polymorphism, and depending what counts as message passing might either dis-include statically typed languages, languages without a defined model of concurrency that disallows shared mutable state, or languages without message passing library support. If that's what canonically counts as OOP, there's no straw-manning going on here, the discussion is just a comparison against a pretty well-defined category of programming languages with different features that are often described as and understood to be object-oriented. Whenever people bring this up I often hear that Erlang is supposed to be the canonical object-oriented language, and if that's the case, I'm not sure how we could call this discussion straw-manning, because it's just talking about totally different languages.